So when does Paul drop out?

[mortimer]

So why is the same question not asked of the other candidates?

Are you unable to interpret facial expressions? Could you not hear the laughing in the background by the other candidates?

You're right. They totally ought to have a rule that the other candidates can't laugh at Ron Paul. It isn't fair.

 

[remirol]

So why is the same question not asked of the other candidates?

Because the question of whether Ron Paul was electable has been around for a lot longer than that, and the questioner wanted to revisit it?

Also, has this question _never_ been asked of any of the other candidates, or simply not in this post-primary debate?

Are you unable to interpret facial expressions?

Which facial expression? The questioner's? What relevance does it have?

Do you believe that voters completely ignore the words being said by the questioner and candidate in favor of the questioner's facial expression?

Do you _really_?

Could you not hear the laughing in the background by the other candidates?

Other candidates do not qualify as "mainstream media", sorry. I would be unsurprised if they laughed or chuckled at _all_ questions posted to _any_ opposing candidate.

 

[Richard Masters]

See the following.

Well?

Did they ever ask Giuliani if he had any electability based on the first two primaries? You have to look at the context. This is not the only time he has ever been asked such questions. The tendency is to ask loaded questions that imply he has no chance.

As you can see Giuliani has no chance, but they never asked him if he did.

They also never asked the rest of the "Republican" candidates whether they were viable given their records on spending, and their welfare-state foreign policies.

 

[Richard Masters]

You're right. They totally ought to have a rule that the other candidates can't laugh at Ron Paul. It isn't fair.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/241547b089466ee4b.jpg[/qimg]

Good job on your straw-man. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I'm simply pointing out their practices and the strategy employed by his opponents.

 

[Richard Masters]

Because the question of whether Ron Paul was electable has been around for a lot longer than that, and the questioner wanted to revisit it?

Also, has this question _never_ been asked of any of the other candidates, or simply not in this post-primary debate?

Simply not with the same frequency or with the same intent. The intent here is ridicule and to avoid asking more relevant questions that would propel him forward instead of generating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Which facial expression? The questioner's? What relevance does it have?

The mocking demeanor, tone, response by the other candidates.

Do you believe that voters completely ignore the words being said by the questioner and candidate in favor of the questioner's facial expression?

I think they appeal to authority (in this case the questioner) and internalize the hidden assumptions in the loaded question. They see Ron Paul being mocked on stage instead of getting to hear his policies and write him off. You can learn more about this if you read about the Asch conformity studies, general group dynamics, availability and representativeness heuristics, and more specifically, it is well-known that experts in one area (physics, for example) will read a newspaper article on physics and find all sorts of inaccuracies and disregard said article as trash. That same person may read an article on another topic (Politics) and regard said article as authoritative.

In other words, people who do not understand Politics or Ron Paul in the audience will simply adopt the attitude of the so-called experts (the interviewer, the other candidates they have already heard plenty about and from).

I hope this makes sense to you.

Other candidates do not qualify as "mainstream media", sorry. I would be unsurprised if they laughed or chuckled at _all_ questions posted to _any_ opposing candidate.

Huh?

 

[remirol]

Did they ever ask Giuliani if he had any electability based on the first two primaries? You have to look at the context. This is not the only time he has ever been asked such questions. The tendency is to ask loaded questions that imply he has no chance.

What you're talking about here is a lot different from "mocking". So you admit that Ron Paul was not being mocked in the video clip, and that it was indeed a serious question?

As you can see Giuliani has no chance, but they never asked him if he did.

Is it possible you're confusing the concept of "electable" here a little bit? In contexts such as these, "electable" means whether, if nominated, you'll be able to win the election against the opposition's nominee -- not whether or not you have a chance of being nominated.

Giuliani would very definitely have a good shot at winning the election vs. Clinton or Obama, which is why you don't hear him getting asked that question. Ron Paul... well, not so much.

But really now, let's be serious about the whole thing: do you think the American public is so intellectually sophisticated as to read such elaborate verbal legerdemain into a simple question?

Is it possible that it was just a straightforward question to determine whether Ron Paul thinks he can beat Obama/Clinton in November?

 

[Spindrift]

You really don't understand why he got the "Are you electable?" question.

It's because someone with his outside the mainstream ideas are basically unelectable by definition. Before you go raving about the mainstream media, I'm talking about the public not the media. In order to be electable you need to appeal to the mainstream. And when one posits way out of the mainstream ideas, then whether or not one is electable is a legitimate question.

 

[Dr. Lao]

People make fun of Ron Paul because the majority of his supporters are nut, spazzes, dorks and conspiracy theorist kooks.

What the heck do you expect?

He is king of Dorklvania.

 

[remirol]

Because the question of whether Ron Paul was electable has been around for a lot longer than that, and the questioner wanted to revisit it?

Also, has this question _never_ been asked of any of the other candidates, or simply not in this post-primary debate?

Simply not with the same frequency or with the same intent. The intent here is ridicule and to avoid asking more relevant questions that would propel him forward instead of generating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Oh, so it _HAS_ been asked of other candidates. OK. We'll make a note of that. "Frequency", well, Ron is a bit of a fringe candidate, yes? Bit of an unknown? I find it not at all unusual that questions concerning a candidate's electability tend to be asked more often of a candidate on the fringe.

"Intent": Do you have a source for your claim of knowledge of the questioner's intent?

Which facial expression? The questioner's? What relevance does it have?

The mocking demeanor, tone, response by the other candidates.

I'm sorry, but neither the demeanor or tone was mocking in that question. You mentioned a facial expression?

As far as the response from the other candidates, well, OF COURSE they're going to mock, laugh at, or demean their opponents whenever they get a shred of an excuse. This isn't a tea-and-crumpets party.

Do you believe that voters completely ignore the words being said by the questioner and candidate in favor of the questioner's facial expression?

Do you _really_?

I think they appeal to authority (in this case the questioner) and internalize the hidden assumptions in the loaded question. They see Ron Paul being mocked on stage instead of getting to hear his policies and write him off.

Of course, he _wasn't_ being mocked, and it _was_ a straightforward, valid question...

You can learn more about this if you read about the Asch conformity studies, general group dynamics, availability and representativeness heuristics, and more specifically, it is well-known that experts in one area (physics, for example) will read a newspaper article on physics and find all sorts of inaccuracies and disregard said article as trash. That same person may read an article on another topic (Politics) and regard said article as authoritative.

Yes, we all know that once he's outside his field, an "expert" is no better than a layman on any given subject.

In other words, people who do not understand Politics or Ron Paul in the audience will simply adopt the attitude of the so-called experts (the interviewer, the other candidates they have already heard plenty about and from).

Why should the interviewer not be considered an expert on what it takes to get elected?

Why should the other candidates not be considered as much experts as Ron Paul?

Other candidates do not qualify as "mainstream media", sorry. I would be unsurprised if they laughed or chuckled at _all_ questions posted to _any_ opposing candidate.

Huh?

See above. I don't care if the other candidates all get together, point, slap their knees, and whoop-n-holler with laughter at Ron; he'll face much worse via negative attacks from the Democratic campaign, and if he can't handle it in a simple debate with people in his own party, he won't be able to handle it later.

I also don't think that this behavior from the opposing candidates converts any voters who weren't already converted in the first place, for exactly that reason; everyone knows all the candidates are competing and aren't to be expected to say nice things about each other.

 

[Richard Masters]

What you're talking about here is a lot different from "mocking". So you admit that Ron Paul was not being mocked in the video clip, and that it was indeed a serious question?

You can ask a serious question with the intent of mocking a person.

Is it possible you're confusing the concept of "electable" here a little bit? In contexts such as these, "electable" means whether, if nominated, you'll be able to win the election against the opposition's nominee -- not whether or not you have a chance of being nominated.

Or it could mean both.

Giuliani would very definitely have a good shot at winning the election vs. Clinton or Obama, which is why you don't hear him getting asked that question. Ron Paul... well, not so much.

According to old statistics, he outperforms most of the Republican candidates against Hillary. So apparently you, too, were affected by video.

But really now, let's be serious about the whole thing: do you think the American public is so intellectually sophisticated as to read such elaborate verbal legerdemain into a simple question?

No, and that's the problem. The audience only hears the laughing and the mocking. They only see the dismissive attitude from the interviewers.

Is it possible that it was just a straightforward question to determine whether Ron Paul thinks he can beat Obama/Clinton in November?

Sure, but then explain the tone of voice and the cackling in the background. Don't ignore the context.

 

[remirol]

You can ask a serious question with the intent of mocking a person.

So, do you know the interviewer's intent? If so, source?

Or it could mean both.

And yet, it doesn't. It means "whether you can get elected", not "whether you can win the nomination".

According to old statistics, he outperforms most of the Republican candidates against Hillary.

1. Source?
2. How did he do against Obama in those same stats?
3. How did he do against "unspecified Democrat"?

So apparently you, too, were affected by video.

This is just an attempt to poison the well, of course. What video are you talking about? I don't watch TV, and the only YouTube I end up seeing is stuff that gets linked, so I'm not really sure where you're getting _this_ from.

No, and that's the problem. The audience only hears the laughing and the mocking. They only see the dismissive attitude from the interviewers.

I didn't see any mocking or a dismissive attitude from the interviewer in that clip, sorry. The laughing, as you've mentioned, is from the other candidates, and I've already addressed that elsewhere.

Sure, but then explain the tone of voice and the cackling in the background. Don't ignore the context.

You're vigorously making a mountain out of an anthill here. There was no mocking tone of voice, and if the other candidates want to laugh at him, well... obviously _they_ don't take him seriously.

 

[Richard Masters]

Oh, so it _HAS_ been asked of other candidates. OK. We'll make a note of that. "Frequency", well, Ron is a bit of a fringe candidate, yes? Bit of an unknown? I find it not at all unusual that questions concerning a candidate's electability tend to be asked more often of a candidate on the fringe.

"Intent": Do you have a source for your claim of knowledge of the questioner's intent?

Yes. Try context and history.

I'm sorry, but neither the demeanor or tone was mocking in that question. You mentioned a facial expression?

You don't have a frame of reference. Have you watched Cameron interview other people?

As far as the response from the other candidates, well, OF COURSE they're going to mock, laugh at, or demean their opponents whenever they get a shred of an excuse. This isn't a tea-and-crumpets party.

Of course.

Of course, he _wasn't_ being mocked, and it _was_ a straightforward, valid question...

So apparently you have a source for intent?

Are you aware that valid questions are not mutually exclusive with loaded questions? That you can mock someone and ask them a serious question simultaneously?

Why should the interviewer not be considered an expert on what it takes to get elected?

He should be considered an expert. He simply shouldn't be trusted to be neutral regarding Ron Paul based on his history and that of FOX News.

Why should the other candidates not be considered as much experts as Ron Paul?

Based on their generally deceitful, vague answers. But this is irrelevant.

You misunderstand the relevance of expertise. I'm talking about the audience who will most likely make their decision based on what the commentators say, and the personal appeal of the candidate.

See above. I don't care if the other candidates all get together, point, slap their knees, and whoop-n-holler with laughter at Ron; he'll face much worse via negative attacks from the Democratic campaign, and if he can't handle it in a simple debate with people in his own party, he won't be able to handle it later.

I'm sure you don't care. But uninformed voters read this as if Ron Paul were a joke, irrespective of the truth or what he says.

I also don't think that this behavior from the opposing candidates converts any voters who weren't already converted in the first place, for exactly that reason; everyone knows all the candidates are competing and aren't to be expected to say nice things about each other.

No, it won't convert any voters who had already made up their mind, but it will influence uninformed voters with limited time.

 

[Richard Masters]

So, do you know the interviewer's intent? If so, source?

The history of the network in any situation regarding Ron Paul is very indicative.

1. Source?

Source

This is just an attempt to poison the well, of course. What video are you talking about? I don't watch TV, and the only YouTube I end up seeing is stuff that gets linked, so I'm not really sure where you're getting _this_ from.

So you are not informed about what went on in the debates. How do you expect to understand the context?

I didn't see any mocking or a dismissive attitude from the interviewer in that clip, sorry. The laughing, as you've mentioned, is from the other candidates, and I've already addressed that elsewhere.

The candidates don't behave the same way toward each other, in spite of the ridiculous things they say on occasion. But you wouldn't know this, because you are unfamiliar with the debates.

You're vigorously making a mountain out of an anthill here. There was no mocking tone of voice, and if the other candidates want to laugh at him, well... obviously _they_ don't take him seriously.

See above.

 

[remirol]

Yes. Try context and history.

So no source, then. Got it.

You don't have a frame of reference. Have you watched Cameron interview other people?

Link me.

So apparently you have a source for intent?

Nope. I'm just going from what I see -- I saw nothing resembling mocking in either tone of voice, phrasing, or facial expression.

I've done a lot of mocking of people, and I've been mocked my fair share myself. I know what mocking looks like, even subtle inside-joke mocking; that wasn't even close. That was an interviewer asking a fringe candidate whether or not that candidate really believed he would win in November.

He should be considered an expert. He simply shouldn't be trusted to be neutral regarding Ron Paul based on his history and that of FOX News.

FOX News is involved now... should this be over in CT?

You misunderstand the relevance of expertise. I'm talking about the audience who will most likely make their decision based on what the commentators say, and the personal appeal of the candidate.

The "personal appeal" thing is nothing new to this election, nor is Ron Paul the first candidate to run smack up against the problem.

Uninformed voters are primarily uninformed because they don't WANT to be informed and don't pay attention, not because the television is telling them not to become informed. It's not that they could care less about Ron Paul, it's that they could care less about ANYONE.

Or, just as bad, they're single-issue voters who will wait until November and pick the candidate who's in favor of/against abortion/war in Iraq/other polarizing, high-profile issue. Nothing that happened on that video clip will alter the way these people vote; half of 'em probably didn't even watch the debate.

I'm sure you don't care. But uninformed voters read this as if Ron Paul were a joke, irrespective of the truth or what he says. No, it won't convert any voters who had already made up their mind, but it will influence uninformed voters with limited time.

See above. Uninformed voters are going to flip a coin and vote for the prettiest and who promises more during October. I would also wager that most uninformed voters do not bother to vote in primary elections at all, since the decision is so much more complicated.

 

[Richard Masters]

FOX News is involved now... should this be over in CT?

Why should FOX News be over at CT?

The "personal appeal" thing is nothing new to this election, nor is Ron Paul the first candidate to run smack up against the problem.

I'm not saying "personal appeal" is new; or that Ron Paul is the first candidate to be character-assassinated.

Uninformed voters are primarily uninformed because they don't WANT to be informed and don't pay attention, not because the television is telling them not to become informed.

We don't disagree.

It's not that they could care less about Ron Paul, it's that they could care less about ANYONE.

I still don't disagree.

Or, just as bad, they're single-issue voters who will wait until November and pick the candidate who's in favor of/against abortion/war in Iraq/other polarizing, high-profile issue.

Probably.

Nothing that happened on that video clip will alter the way these people vote; half of 'em probably didn't even watch the debate.

No, instead they hear the commentary and watch short clips like the one you watched.

See above. Uninformed voters are going to flip a coin and vote for the prettiest and who promises more during October.

Yes.

I would also wager that most uninformed voters do not bother to vote in primary elections at all, since the decision is so much more complicated.

But misinformed voters do vote in primary elections.

 

[remirol]

The history of the network in any situation regarding Ron Paul is very indicative.

I see. So, no source.

Source of "Paul over Hillary" stats: Source

From that URL, the following:

We put up the results of a Zogby poll yesterday that showed Hillary Clinton was the most objectionable Democrat and that Ron Paul was the most objectionable Republican. We got a bit curious to see how those two fared against each other and with access to the archives with Rasmussen Reports, we tallied it here below for you

I note that Obama and "unspecified democrat" were not included, so this hardly resolves any question of "electability" one way or another; it wasn't a complete poll. Also -- they deliberately picked what they considered the least-likable two and pitted them against each other! Talk about "cherry picking" numbers -- I would say that this actually supports the view that Paul and Hillary are potentially _least_ electable from their respective parties!

Also from that URL:

Please note that the margin of error of each age subgroup is larger than the total poll itself.

...Perhaps we shouldn't take those stats too seriously, huh? I could keep going, but this isn't a thread about that source, so -- moving on.

So you are not informed about what went on in the debates. How do you expect to understand the context?

There isn't much need in this case. Keep in mind, this is you saying you know what a particular interviewer "intended" when he asked a certain question, and describing an elaborate Machiavellian scenario by which Ron Paul was not asked relevant (in your eyes) questions, but was instead asked questions designed to make him "look bad".

Forgive me, but this is a skeptics' forum -- you should expect the inhabitants to be somewhat skeptical. I don't believe in mind reading, and I don't believe in NFL-style second-guessing the referee from the bleachers because he made a call that went against your team -- at least not without some instant replay involved. So, link me. Where is this interviewer being disrespectful or mocking to Paul? You say there's a pattern; well, show us the pattern!

The candidates don't behave the same way toward each other, in spite of the ridiculous things they say on occasion. But you wouldn't know this, because you are unfamiliar with the debates.

Of course the candidates don't behave the same way towards each other. They have greater or lesser respect for each other based on their experiences with each other. If they don't like someone, they are going to laugh at him when he's put on the spot.

I don't have a problem with this. How a man's peers treat him is often an excellent indicator of their opinions of him.

 

[Richard Masters]

I see. So, no source.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200710220006

http://majorityrights.com/index.php...raphic_example_of_media_blackout_of_ron_paul/

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2...-fox-and-others-continue-blackout-with-video/

I note that Obama and "unspecified democrat" were not included, so this hardly resolves any question of "electability" one way or another; it wasn't a complete poll. Also -- they deliberately picked what they considered the least-likable two and pitted them against each other! Talk about "cherry picking" numbers -- I would say that this actually supports the view that Paul and Hillary are potentially _least_ electable from their respective parties!

You can see how other candidates fared against Hillary. Nice derail.

There isn't much need in this case. Keep in mind, this is you saying you know what a particular interviewer "intended" when he asked a certain question, and describing an elaborate Machiavellian scenario by which Ron Paul was not asked relevant (in your eyes) questions, but was instead asked questions designed to make him "look bad".

Forgive me, but this is a skeptics' forum -- you should expect the inhabitants to be somewhat skeptical.
...
So, link me. Where is this interviewer being disrespectful or mocking to Paul? You say there's a pattern; well, show us the pattern!

Done.

Of course the candidates don't behave the same way towards each other. They have greater or lesser respect for each other based on their experiences with each other. If they don't like someone, they are going to laugh at him when he's put on the spot.

I don't have a problem with this. How a man's peers treat him is often an excellent indicator of their opinions of him.

Obviously, but you are still missing the point.

 

[D'rok]

I'm going to side partially with the Ronulans on this one. Yes, Paul has serious and legitimate electability problems, but asking that question of a candidate in a debate is pretty much ass IMO. It reflects more on the poor quality of the debate and the moderator than on the candidate.

 

[Kerberos]

Source

Shows every Republican, but Thompson outperforming RP. So much for your claim.

 

[suicidesamurai]

People make fun of Ron Paul because the majority of his supporters are nut, spazzes, dorks and conspiracy theorist kooks.

What the heck do you expect?

He is king of Dorklvania.

The twoof will set you free.

Ron Paul / Alex Jones 2008